- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:59 am to David_DJS
quote:Copyright law doesn't really work that way tho. Woodward is the creator. Trump is an idiot for pursuing this. He has no case. At all. And no PR to gain from it either. Makes him look small, petty, and whiny.
Trump knew he was being taped. He's arguing that didn't give Woodward the right to release/sell the tapes.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:05 am to loogaroo
Another stupid, stupid decision by Trump. Why talk to that leftist pos?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:10 am to Jake88
quote:
Another stupid, stupid decision by Trump.
Perhaps you should work really hard, become famous and influential and then give advice to Politicians instead of shitposting on Social Media?
You may very well save us all!
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:13 am to loogaroo
Why would Trump voluntarily interview with the CIA?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:14 am to CelticDog
quote:
this is an attempt to limit the use of where trump admits he knows the then-current covid was deadly but he lied about it.
Impossible. You cannot believe this. You stick with.. and excuse.. democrats for calling travel restrictions, at the time, xenophobic because it was not deadly. One of them is the sitting president.
Remember Nancy inviting everyone to Chinatown in San Fran?
So take a seat. Your fake concern is therefore invalid and your views of no merit.
Sorry.
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 11:15 am
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:15 am to loogaroo
I like the play. Now Bob Woodward becomes publc disscussion. Hoping Trump starts hammering the fact that the Watergate was all a setup and Woodward was hand picked for a reason.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 12:02 pm to riccoar
quote:
Watergate was all a setup
Posted on 1/31/23 at 12:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Without contractual details, this is difficult to sort out. But if rights/ownership of the tapes are not contractually specified, would Trump have any angle here?
AggieHank86
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 1/31/23 at 12:59 pm to NC_Tigah
Not sure if Trump just loves to file law suites, or he loves to lose law suites, because he seems to do both multiply times on the daily.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:03 pm to AggieHank86
Not my area, so I have no clue if it’s frivolous. IF (if) trump and Woodward had an agreement that anything off the record or not approved by Trump would be released, was later released. Is there a cause of action?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Lots to unpack.quote:Without contractual details, this is difficult to sort out. But if rights/ownership of the tapes are not contractually specified, would Trump have any angle here?
AggieHank86
If Trump was unaware that the interview was being recorded, he might have an argument that the recording was illegal (depending upon the state in which the interview was conducted). In some states it is illegal to record a conversation, unless BOTH parties know that it is being recorded. In others, only one party must know.
But that seems unlikely. Trump was almost-certainly aware of the recording device. Paragraph 31 of the Complaint seems to confirm. And he does not seem to be asserting any sort of violation of the criminal law anyway.
As I understand it, "on the record" or "off the record" does not have much legal meaning. It is more a question of journalistic ethics. If Woodward agreed that parts of the interview were "off the record" and then released that information, his behavior would be unethical. The effect is pragmatic, more than anything. If a reporter routinely agrees to converse "off the record" and then publishes, people will become unwilling to grant him interviews.
Here is the Complaint filed by Trump. It looks like he is claiming that he owns a copyright interest in his recorded answers to Woodward's recorded questions (in which Woodward would own a copyright) and that he granted only a very limited license for the use of his recorded words.
quote:On its face, this just does not make much logical sense, because the result would be that every journalistic interview would be owned jointly, meaning that the reporter could never publish anything to which the interviewee does not provide advance consent of the content. It would mean the end of investigative journalism. As such, I suspect that the law varies somewhat from what Trump's attorneys are representing, but I have not researched the matter.
The Defendants’ actions are, inter alia, in direct contravention of the law laid out in the compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, which sets forth a presumption that “the interviewer and the interviewee own the copyright in their respective questions and responses unless (i) the work is claimed as a joint work; (ii) the applicant provides a transfer statement indicating that the interviewer or the interviewee transferred his or her rights to the copyright claimant, or (iii) the applicant indicates that the interview was created or commissioned as a work made for hire. See Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 3d Ed. (2021).
Trump acknowledges that the interviews were being recorded "for a book." As best I can tell, he is asserting that Woodward had a contractual license to use the recordings to WRITE a book (see paragraph 118), but did not have a similar license to release Trump's verbal responses. IN the alternative, he seems to be arguing that the audio book is a second (and different) publication than the physical book, and that Trump granted a license only for the PHYSICAL book and not for the second/audio book.
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:14 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Possibly.
Not my area, so I have no clue if it’s frivolous. IF (if) trump and Woodward had an agreement that anything off the record or not approved by Trump would be released, was later released. Is there a cause of action?
IF Trump is correct in asserting that he owns a copyright in his own verbal words spoken during a journalistic interview (which seems questionable to me), it seems to me that he could attach whatever conditions he likes to the license for use of those words, including (theoretically) pre-approval AND/OR no release of the tapes themselves.
Does that make sense to you?
quote:At a minimum and based upon a VERY cursory look, it seems to me like he can clear that hurdle in this case.
frivolous
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
IF Trump is correct in asserting that he owns a copyright in his own verbal words spoken during a journalistic interview (which seems questionable to me), it seems to me that he could attach whatever conditions he likes to the license for use of those words, including (theoretically) pre-approval AND/OR no release of the tapes themselves.
This would only work if there was an explicit contract restricting the use of the tapes. At that point it would not be a copyright issue, it would be a contractual restraint issue.
The "author" of the tapes in a recorded interview of Trump would be Woodward. Trump can either speak, and be recorded, or not speak. When Trump speaks with a recording device in front of him, Trump has no copyright claim to the recording.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:29 pm to TBoy
quote:My instinct is that this is not correct.quote:This would only work if there was an explicit contract restricting the use of the tapes. At that point it would not be a copyright issue, it would be a contractual restraint issue.
IF Trump is correct in asserting that he owns a copyright in his own verbal words spoken during a journalistic interview (which seems questionable to me), it seems to me that he could attach whatever conditions he likes to the license for use of those words, including (theoretically) pre-approval AND/OR no release of the tapes themselves.
The "author" of the tapes in a recorded interview of Trump would be Woodward. Trump can either speak, and be recorded, or not speak. When Trump speaks with a recording device in front of him, Trump has no copyright claim to the recording.
IF Trump automatically owns the copyright in his own verbal words (again, I question this), it would be incumbent upon Woodward to obtain and prove the existence of a license for the use of those words (and the terms under which they may be used).
Again, this is instinct, not the subject of any extensive research.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Again, this is instinct, not the subject of any extensive research.
I thought you said you don't make analysis' on evidence you don't have.
You literally just said that....
Are you bipolar?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Trump is not naive to this stuff - either recordings, broadcast rights, or publication. But he also has filed frivolously in the past. It wouldn't break my heart to see Woodward get burned though.
My instinct is that this is not correct.
IF Trump automatically owns the copyright in his own verbal words (again, I question this), it would be incumbent upon Woodward to obtain and prove the existence of a license for the use of those words (and the terms under which they may be used).
Again, this is instinct, not the subject of any extensive research.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
IF Trump automatically owns the copyright in his own verbal words
There is no such thing. Spoken words do not have copyright protection. Copyright only attaches when things are fixed, and therefore subject to copying.
If spoken words were copyrighted, Trump could sue any reporter who reports, without his explicit approval, what he says. You are overthinking this.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:42 pm to TBoy
quote:Remember, this is a recording. The words are (by definition) "fixed." Some types of recordings are most DEFINITELY subject to copyright.
There is no such thing. Spoken words do not have copyright protection. Copyright only attaches when things are fixed, and therefore subject to copying.
Trump even cited purported legal authority for his position. Again, that authority does not "smell right" to me, but (if correct) it would seem to support his argument.
quote:Yes, I already said that. It is part of why I don't think that his purported authority ultimately passes the "smell test."
If spoken words were copyrighted, Trump could sue any reporter who reports, without his explicit approval, what he says
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News